FDIC Board grants request for hearing by Section 32 applicant, after FDIC Director of Supervision denied request as not timely filed because it was misaddressed.

[.1]FDI Act Section 32ProceedingsRequest for Hearing
Where misdirection of request for hearing was inadvertent, and copies were timely received by other parties, the request is deemed timely filed and a hearing should take place.

In the Matter ofROBERT C. WILKINSNEW RIVER BANKOAKLAND PARK,FLORIDA
(Insured State Nonmember Bank)DECISION AND ORDER ONREQUEST FOR HEARINGFDIC-93-9jj

BACKGROUND

On December 15, 1992, New River Bank, Oakland Park, Florida ("Bank"), and Robert C. Wilkins submitted a Notification of Addition of a Director or Employment of a Senior Executive Officer ("Notification") under section 32 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1831i. After consideration of the Notification, the Regional Director (Supervision) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's ("FDIC") Atlanta Regional Office, pursuant to delegated authority, issued a Notice of Disapproval of Notification of Addition of a Director and/or Employment of a Senior Executive Officer based on statutory factors enumerated in 12 U.S.C. § 1831i(e). Thereafter, the Bank and Mr. Wilkins requested reconsideration of the disapproval, and on February 19, 1993, the Associate Director of the FDIC's Division of Supervision, pursuant to delegated authority, denied the request for reconsideration.
On March 5, 1993, the Bank and Mr. Wilkins sent by Federal Express a request for hearing pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1831i and 12 C.F.R. § 308.154. Copies of that request were timely received by Regional Counsel John J. Rubin and Association General Counsel Arthur L. Beamon. However, the original of the request, directed to the Executive Secretary, was misaddressed and did not arrive in a timely fashion under the regulation.

DISCUSSION

[.1] Requests for hearing in section 32 cases are governed by 12 C.F.R. § 308.154(c)(1). The regulation provides in pertinent part that a denial of a request for reconsideration must "[i]nform the petitioner that a written request for a hearing,..., may be filed with the Executive Secretary within 15 days after the receipt of the denial." Ibid. There is no dispute that had request for hearing not been misdirected in this case, it would have been timely filed under the regulation. There is also no dispute that the misdirection of the original of the request destined for the Executive Secretary was inadvertent and that the Regional Counsel and Associate General Counsel received copies. Accordingly, the Board of Directors concludes that for purposes of 12 C.F.R. § 308.154(c)(1), the request for hearing should be deemed timely filed and that a hearing should take place.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that the request for hearing filed pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 308.154(c)(1) is GRANTED.
By direction of the Board of Directors.
Dated at Washington, D.C., this 11th day of May, 1993.